9. DISEÑO DE DETALLE DE TANQUE DE ALMACENAMIENTO
9.3. DISEÑO A CARGA ESTÁTICA DE LA ENTRADA DEL HOMBRE
The paper has provided new evidence on the evolution of wage dispersion in Sweden with particular focus on dispersion within and between plants. We use linked employer-employee data and find a striking trend increase in between plant wage inequality since the mid-1980s. Interestingly, this trend in between plant variance makes up the entire increase in wage dispersion over the period.
The increase in wage dispersion between plants is present in the raw data but also when we control for workers’ human capital characteristics. Thus, sorting by observed characteristics can only explain part of the increase. We find that the basic pattern holds within industries as well as between plants in different industries. Also, increasing between plant wage dispersion has been substantial
the distribution. Overall, our results suggest that the growing difference between plants is driven by increased differences between plants in the wages they pay, rather than by changes in the composition of plants in the economy.
It lies close at hand to suspect that a gradual evolution towards more decentralized wage bargaining practices is a factor of importance. Our data are however not rich enough to test alternative hypotheses concerning the mechanisms behind the rise in wage inequality between plants. It is premature, therefore, to identify the causes of the rise in between plant wage inequality. To make progress on this front we need more information on plant characteristics, and in particular measures of (value) productivity at the plant level.
References
Arai, M (2003), Wages, Profits, and Capital Intensity: Evidence from Matched Worker-Firm Data, Journal of Labor Economics 21, 593-618.
Björklund, A, M A Clark, P-A Edin, P Fredriksson and A Krueger (2005), The
Market Comes to Education in Sweden: An Evaluation of Sweden's Surprising School Reforms, Russel Sage.
Boeri, T, A Brugiavini and L Calmfors (2001), The Role of Unions in the
Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press.
Dunne, T, L Foster, J Haltiwanger and K Troske (2004), Wage and Productivity Dispersion in United States Manufacturing: The Role of Computer Investment, Journal of Labor Economics 22, 397-429.
Edin P-A and P Fredriksson (2000), LINDA - Longitudinal INdividual DAta for Sweden Department of Economics Uppsala University, Working Paper 2000:19.
Edin, P-A and B Holmlund (1995), The Swedish Wage Structure: The Rise and Fall of Solidarity Wage Policy?, in R Freeman and L Katz (eds), Differences
and Changes in Wage Structures, University of Chicago Press.
Forslund, A (1994), Wage Setting at the Firm Level – Insider versus Outsider Forces, Oxford Economic Papers 46, 245-261.
Forslund, A and T Lindh (2004), Decentralization of Bargaining and Manufacturing Employment: Sweden 1970-96, manuscript, Department of Economics, Uppsala University.
Gustavsson M (2006), The Evolution of the Swedish Wage Structure: New Evidence for 1992-2001, Applied Economics Letters 13(5).
Hibbs, D (1990), Wage Dispersion and Trade Union Action in Sweden, in I Persson (ed), Generating Equality in the Welfare State: The Swedish
Experience, Norwegian University Press.
Holmlund, B (2006), The Rise and Fall of Swedish Unemployment, in M Werding (ed), Structural Unemployment in Western Europe: Reasons and
Remedies, MIT Press 2006.
Holmlund, B and D Storrie (2002), Temporary Work in Turbulent Times: The Swedish Experience, Economic Journal 112, F245-F269.
Holmlund, B and J Zetterberg (1991), Insider Effects in Wage Determination: Evidence from Five Countries, European Economic Review 35, 1009-1034. Houseman, S (2001), Why Employers Use Flexible Staffing Arrangements:
Evidence from an Establishment Survey, Industrial and Labor Relations
Review 55, 149-170.
Kremer, M and E Maskin (1996), Wage Inequality and Segregation by Skill, NBER Working Paper 5718, forthcoming in Quarterly Journal of
Economics.
Le Grand C, R Szulkin and M Thålin (2001), Lönestrukturens förändring i Sverige, in SOU 2001:53, Välfärd och arbete i arbetslöshetens årtionde, Fritzes.
OECD (1999), OECD Employment Outlook, OECD.
SCB (2001) Standard Classification by Institutional Sector, 2000, INSEKT 2000, Standard Classification by Ownership Control, 2000, ÄGAR 2000, Classification by Type of Legal Entity, JURFORM. MIS 2001:2, SCB, Örebro.
SCB (2002), En longitudinell databas kring utbildning, inkomst och sysselsättning (LOUISE) 1990-1999. Bakgrundsfakta till arbetsmarknads-
Appendix A. Mobility of high and low
level jobs
Table A1 Mobility, high level jobs (continues).
All plants Plants with 100+ employees 1986 1990 1995 2000 1986 1990 1995 2000 Number of plants 6783 8025 7137 8475 1338 1560 1418 1640 Employees 100.6 98.4 101.7 99.1 311.6 303.8 315.4 302.6 (s.d.) 236.1 226.1 224.5 213.2 474.7 456.8 441.5 425.5 Employment growth 0.016 0.029 0.057 0.062 0.002 -0.005 0.051 0.040 (s.d.) 0.243 0.247 0.230 0.327 0.171 0.160 0.193 0.249 Exit rate, observ =
0.136 0.149 0.136 0.182 0.133 0.153 0.131 0.197
person
Exit rate 0.141 0.158 0.144 0.190 0.125 0.152 0.130 0.191 (s.d.) 0.202 0.210 0.206 0.237 0.140 0.150 0.139 0.179 Exit rate, top quartile
of plant wages 0.167 0.183 0.179 0.220 0.161 0.190 0.182 0.239 (s.d.) 0.285 0.293 0.293 0.320 0.201 0.213 0.213 0.259 Exit rate, bottom
quartile of firm wages 0.128 0.147 0.128 0.177 0.113 0.128 0.105 0.159 (s.d.) 0.249 0.266 0.252 0.282 0.185 0.188 0.184 0.217 Exit rate, top decile of
firm wages 0.186 0.204 0.208 0.239 0.188 0.229 0.236 0.279 (s.d.) 0.339 0.352 0.353 0.375 0.263 0.288 0.291 0.333 Exit rate, bottom
decile of firm wages 0.141 0.156 0.122 0.192 0.115 0.130 0.095 0.170 (s.d.) 0.289 0.301 0.267 0.323 0.233 0.233 0.196 0.269 Entry rate 0.116 0.129 0.128 0.169 0.107 0.114 0.118 0.167 (s.d.) 0.183 0.191 0.197 0.227 0.133 0.136 0.138 0.181 Entry rate, top quartile
of firm wages 0.130 0.147 0.146 0.181 0.126 0.148 0.151 0.191 (s.d.) 0.253 0.268 0.271 0.300 0.182 0.202 0.208 0.243 Entry rate, bottom
quartile of firm wages 0.117 0.125 0.122 0.179 0.102 0.096 0.105 0.149 (s.d.) 0.241 0.244 0.242 0.289 0.182 0.163 0.182 0.221
Table A1 Mobility, high level jobs (continued).
All plants Plants with 100+ employees 1986 1990 1995 2000 1986 1990 1995 2000 Entry rate, top decile 0.144 0.160 0.159 0.194 0.152 0.171 0.180 0.222 of firm wages
(s.d.) 0.304 0.320 0.321 0.347 0.243 0.260 0.273 0.311 Entry rate, bottom
0.128 0.141 0.139 0.200 0.094 0.095 0.111 0.154 decile of firm wages
(s.d.) 0.279 0.289 0.285 0.330 0.201 0.201 0.209 0.254 % of workers with 5+ -- 0.452 0.485 0.447 -- 0.472 0.529 0.468 years of tenure
(s.d.) 0.344 0.355 0.347 0.310 0.308 0.299 Correlation (exit rate,
0.105 0.106 0.134 0.158 0.174 0.117 0.196 0.193 average wage),
Correlation(exit rate,
0.045 0.047 0.072 0.131 0.074 0.084 0.121 0.141 average wage change)
Correlation(exit rate, 0.072 0.109 0.120 0.161 0.096 0.074 0.146 0.117 s.d. of wage)
Correlation (entry rate, 0.103 0.129 0.150 0.165 0.088 0.165 0.229 0.182 average wage),
Correlation(entry rate,
0.027 0.044 0.056 0.090 0.084 0.085 0.069 0.083 average wage change),
Correlation(entry rate,
0.087 0.128 0.117 0.129 0.037 0.141 0.118 0.122 s.d. of wage),
Note: High level jobs are jobs with wages above the 80th percentile of the sample wage distribution All statistics are at the plant level with one plant as one observation except otherwise noted. Tables for all jobs can be found in the text. Correlations are with average log wages in plants, average log wage changes for workers remaining in the plant, and standard deviation of log wages within plants.
Table A2 Mobility, low level jobs (continues).
All Plants Plants with 100+ employees 1986 1990 1995 2000 1986 1990 1995 2000 Number of plants 6964 8195 7415 8868 1340 1565 1420 1650 Employees 99.1 97.2 99.4 96.4 311.6 303.2 315.3 301.6 (s.d.) 233.3 223.9 220.6 208.8 474.4 456.1 441.2 424.4 Employment growth 0.016 0.028 0.057 0.060 0.001 -0.006 0.051 0.040 (s.d.) 0.242 0.246 0.228 0.320 0.172 0.160 0.193 0.249 Exit rate, observ =
0.394 0.395 0.270 0.346 0.376 0.387 0.246 0.319
person
Exit rate 0.387 0.382 0.286 0.345 0.369 0.377 0.258 0.321 (s.d.) 0.212 0.216 0.219 0.233 0.135 0.138 0.146 0.160 Exit rate, top quartile
of firm wages 0.303 0.318 0.217 0.276 0.257 0.290 0.168 0.230 (s.d.) 0.314 0.316 0.296 0.318 0.189 0.191 0.181 0.207 Exit rate, bottom
quartile of firm wages 0.521 0.485 0.393 0.456 0.525 0.496 0.385 0.460 (s.d.) 0.353 0.352 0.349 0.352 0.209 0.214 0.231 0.245 Exit rate, top decile of
firm wages 0.291 0.306 0.208 0.272 0.249 0.274 0.159 0.226 (s.d.) 0.385 0.387 0.352 0.380 0.247 0.255 0.224 0.267 Exit rate, bottom
decile of firm wages 0.579 0.537 0.443 0.517 0.584 0.545 0.451 0.518 (s.d.) 0.409 0.413 0.411 0.415 0.312 0.313 0.320 0.321 Entry rate 0.428 0.463 0.417 0.463 0.393 0.414 0.378 0.424 (s.d.) 0.239 0.239 0.256 0.264 0.167 0.162 0.181 0.201 Entry rate, top quartile
of firm wages 0.333 0.375 0.320 0.361 0.280 0.319 0.273 0.309 (s.d.) 0.336 0.345 0.347 0.359 0.210 0.216 0.237 0.262 Entry rate, bottom
quartile of firm wages 0.544 0.568 0.541 0.583 0.510 0.515 0.500 0.538 (s.d.) 0.357 0.355 0.358 0.356 0.234 0.230 0.238 0.263 Entry rate, top decile
of firm wages 0.318 0.364 0.305 0.347 0.262 0.300 0.259 0.285 (s.d.) 0.400 0.414 0.402 0.417 0.264 0.276 0.282 0.306 Entry rate, bottom
decile of firm wages 0.570 0.604 0.585 0.618 0.523 0.538 0.546 0.567 (s.d.) 0.413 0.407 0.409 0.405 0.328 0.323 0.322 0.332
Table A2 Mobility, low level jobs (continued).
All Plants Plants with 100+ employees 1986 1990 1995 2000 1986 1990 1995 2000 % of workers with 5+
-- 0.137 0.235 0.203 -- 0.170 0.278 0.262 years of tenure
(s.d.) 0.169 0.232 0.222 0.147 0.196 0.210 Correlation (exit rate, -0.175 -0.139 -0.186 -0.217 -0.123 -0.069 -0.229 -0.249 average wage),
Correlation(exit rate, -0.015 -0.048 -0.024 -0.020 -0.044 -0.084 -0.014 -0.073 average wage change)
Correlation(exit rate,
0.044 0.053 0.076 0.099 0.061 -0.014 0.064 0.162 s.d. of wage)
Correlation (entry rate,
-0.153 -0.116 -0.122 -0.148 -0.177 -0.058 -0.069 -0.168 average wage),
Correlation(entry rate, 0.110 0.083 0.132 0.130 0.225 0.215 0.252 0.139 average wage change),
Correlation(entry rate, 0.045 0.033 0.055 0.079 -0.015 -0.002 -0.053 0.021 s.d. of wage),
Note: Low level jobs are jobs with wages below the 20th percentile of the sample wage distribution All statistics are at the plant level with one plant as one observation except otherwise noted. Tables for all jobs can be found in the text. Correlations are with average log wages in plants, average log wage changes for workers remaining in the plant, and standard deviation of log ages within plants.
Appendix B Mincer equation estimates
Table B1 OLS Mincer equation results for corporate sector workers in 25+ sized plants.
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2-year High school 0.052 0.056 0.057 0.057 0.059 0.064 0.072 0.062 0.064 0.062 0.059 0.060 0.058 0.053 0.052 0.048 3-year High school 0.159 0.163 0.164 0.158 0.160 0.166 0.173 0.161 0.165 0.163 0.154 0.159 0.157 0.156 0.161 0.161 Some univ. 0.210 0.216 0.222 0.223 0.225 0.233 0.241 0.230 0.235 0.235 0.232 0.246 0.252 0.257 0.271 0.277 3-year univ. 0.403 0.421 0.425 0.430 0.421 0.429 0.441 0.431 0.429 0.435 0.427 0.437 0.438 0.441 0.452 0.458 Post grad. 0.561 0.578 0.578 0.598 0.582 0.588 0.592 0.584 0.576 0.556 0.565 0.552 0.549 0.552 0.565 0.617 Age 0.041 0.040 0.041 0.042 0.041 0.041 0.039 0.033 0.035 0.040 0.040 0.041 0.043 0.044 0.044 0.044 age^2*100 -0.041 -0.040 -0.041 -0.042 -0.041 -0.041 -0.038 -0.032 -0.034 -0.039 -0.040 -0.040 -0.042 -0.044 -0.044 -0.044 Female -0.206 -0.192 -0.201 -0.216 -0.211 -0.213 -0.215 -0.206 -0.214 -0.219 -0.219 -0.215 -0.211 -0.207 -0.199 -0.197 Immigrant -0.051 -0.056 -0.062 -0.070 -0.076 -0.082 -0.073 -0.058 -0.057 -0.058 -0.061 -0.064 -0.069 -0.074 -0.090 -0.097 Constant 8.158 8.238 8.287 8.323 8.439 8.526 8.640 8.810 8.801 8.735 8.769 8.809 8.804 8.815 8.825 8.865 R-squared 0.4 0.41 0.4 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.33
Table B2 Plant fixed-effects Mincer equation results for corporate sector workers in 25+ sized plants. 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2-year High school 0.042 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.047 0.050 0.053 0.049 0.049 0.048 0.046 0.048 0.046 0.042 0.039 0.036 3-year High school 0.122 0.125 0.124 0.119 0.121 0.123 0.126 0.119 0.119 0.117 0.110 0.115 0.113 0.112 0.112 0.111 Some univ. 0.154 0.160 0.163 0.165 0.167 0.172 0.176 0.168 0.169 0.169 0.164 0.172 0.176 0.177 0.182 0.184 3-year univ. 0.326 0.343 0.342 0.347 0.338 0.339 0.347 0.339 0.335 0.340 0.329 0.334 0.331 0.328 0.325 0.321 Post grad. 0.490 0.507 0.503 0.523 0.505 0.507 0.513 0.508 0.500 0.505 0.489 0.493 0.485 0.482 0.483 0.490 Age 0.038 0.037 0.038 0.039 0.038 0.038 0.035 0.031 0.032 0.036 0.037 0.037 0.040 0.041 0.040 0.040 age^2*100 -0.038 -0.037 -0.037 -0.038 -0.037 -0.037 -0.034 -0.029 -0.030 -0.034 -0.036 -0.036 -0.039 -0.040 -0.039 -0.039 Female -0.216 -0.205 -0.214 -0.224 -0.218 -0.220 -0.221 -0.211 -0.219 -0.219 -0.215 -0.210 -0.207 -0.203 -0.197 -0.194 Immigrant -0.056 -0.059 -0.064 -0.070 -0.077 -0.078 -0.068 -0.056 -0.052 -0.052 -0.055 -0.057 -0.059 -0.064 -0.068 -0.073 Constant 8.222 8.311 8.366 8.400 8.517 8.623 8.732 8.888 8.903 8.845 8.866 8.911 8.897 8.907 8.946 8.986 Number Plants of 8381 8680 9226 10109 10243 10552 10296 9431 9191 9816 10501 10720 10997 11575 12138 12820 Within R-squared 0.36 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.26 Between R-squared 0.505 0.523 0.508 0.518 0.513 0.536 0.500 0.502 0.514 0.523 0.524 0.522 0.511 0.490 0.491 0.469 Variance- share of plant effect 0.184 0.189 0.191 0.188 0.183 0.193 0.217 0.225 0.229 0.229 0.239 0.248 0.253 0.258 0.272 0.283 (u) Corr (X b, u) 0.121 0.124 0.124 0.126 0.135 0.147 0.143 0.149 0.156 0.165 0.174 0.177 0.176 0.170 0.190 0.196
Note: All estimates are significant at the 1 % significance level (all standard errors are 0.005 or less). Reference for education is “less than high school”. Estimated model is lnW=Xb+u+e where
Appendix C: Additional tables
Table C1 Means and standard deviations of wages and wage changes.
Log wages Log wage change
1986 1990 1995 2000 1986 1990 1995 2000
Plants by wage decile Plants by wage change decile
> 90 %-ile plants
Mean wage (or change) 9.690 9.753 9.845 10.068 0.128 0.092 0.137 0.156 Average within plant sd 0.343 0.345 0.338 0.348 0.133 0.150 0.146 0.168 45th to 55th %-ile plants
Mean wage (or change) 9.376 9.440 9.505 9.666 0.051 0.006 0.036 0.046 Average within plant sd 0.255 0.270 0.263 0.264 0.111 0.128 0.116 0.121
< 10 %-ile plants
Mean wage (or change) 9.178 9.213 9.249 9.411 -0.012 -0.073 -0.037 -0.034 Average within plant sd 0.217 0.240 0.238 0.236 0.122 0.138 0.131 0.134
Plants by distance to the plant with Plants by distance to the plant with
median wage median wage-change
Decile around 1 sd above median:
Mean wage (or change) 9.542 9.606 9.690 9.880 0.094 0.055 0.094 0.108 Average within plant sd 0.317 0.317 0.313 0.324 0.124 0.138 0.139 0.152 Decile around 1 sd below
median:
Mean wage (or change) 9.250 9.302 9.351 9.504 0.013 -0.040 -0.012 -0.007 Average within plant sd 0.228 0.253 0.239 0.247 0.116 0.131 0.121 0.128
N: Plants by decile. 704 831 753 906 704 831 753 906
Note: All statistics are at the plant level with one plant as one observation and calculated for one decile in the distribution of plant wages (left-hand side) or in the distribution of wage changes (right-hand side).
Table C2 Exit rates in plants with compressed and dispersed wages.
1986 1990 1995 2000
Plants with compressed wages(90th/50th wage
percentile ratio below average)
Exit rate 0.197 0.207 0.149 0.193
Sd 0.123 0.121 0.114 0.132
Exit rate in top within-plant decile 0.127 0.142 0.123 0.158
Sd 0.182 0.187 0.175 0.200
Exit rate in bottom within-plant decile 0.456 0.432 0.340 0.389
Sd 0.272 0.269 0.267 0.273
Plants with dispersed wages (90th/50th wage percentile
ratio above average)
Exit rate 0.209 0.228 0.174 0.238
Sd 0.125 0.128 0.127 0.149
Exit rate in top within-plant decile 0.165 0.185 0.184 0.236
Sd 0.204 0.215 0.220 0.245
Exit rate in bottom within-plant decile 0.452 0.431 0.341 0.406
Sd 0.270 0.270 0.268 0.284
Note: All statistics are at the plant level with one plant as one observation and calculated for one decile in the distribution of plant wages (first half) or in the distribution of wage changes (second
Publication series published by the Institute for Labour
Market Policy Evaluation (IFAU) – latest issues
Rapporter/Reports
2006:1 Zenou Yves, Olof Åslund & John Östh ”Hur viktig är närheten till jobb för chanserna på arbetsmarknaden?”
2006:2 Mörk Eva, Linus Lindqvist & Daniela Lundin ”Påverkar maxtaxan inom barnomsorgen hur mycket föräldrar arbetar?”
2006:3 Hägglund Pathric ”Anvisningseffekter” – finns dom? Resultat från tre arbetsmarknadspolitiska experiment”
2006:4 Hägglund Pathric ”A description of three randomised experiments in Swedish labour market policy”
2006:5 Forslund Anders & Oskar Nordström Skans “(Hur) hjälps ungdomar av arbetsmarknadspolitiska program för unga?”
2006:6 Johansson Per & Olof Åslund ”’Arbetsplatsintroduktion för vissa invandrare’ – teori, praktik och effekter”
2006:7 Calleman Catharina ”Regleringen av arbetsmarknad och anställningsförhål- landen för hushållstjänster”
2006:8 Nordström Skans Oskar, Per-Anders Edin & Bertil Holmlund ”Löneskillna- der i svenskt näringsliv 1985–2000”
Working Papers
2006:1 Åslund Olof, John Östh & Yves Zenou “How important is access to jobs? Old question – improved answer”
2006:2 Hägglund Pathric “Are there pre-programme effects of Swedish active labour market policies? Evidence from three randomised experiments”
2006:3 Johansson Per “Using internal replication to establish a treatment effect”
2006:4 Edin Per-Anders & Jonas Lagerström “Blind dates: quasi-experimental evidence on discrimination”
2006:5 Öster Anna “Parental unemployment and children’s school performance”
2006:6 Forslund Anders & Oskar Nordström Skans “Swedish youth labour market policies revisited”
2006:7 Åslund Olof & Per Johansson “Virtues of SIN – effects of an immigrant workplace introduction program”
2006:9 Nordström Skans Oskar, Per-Anders Edin & Bertil Holmlund “Wage disper- sion between and within plants: Sweden 1985–2000”
Dissertation Series
2006:1 Hägglund Pathric “Natural and classical experiments in Swedish labour market policy”
2006:2 Savvidou Eleni “Technology, human capital and labor demand”
2006:3 Söderström Martin “Evaluating institutional changes in education and wage policy”
2006:4 Lagerström Jonas “Discrimination, sickness absence, and labor market policy”